1 |
On 20:33 Wed 03 Aug , Fabian Groffen wrote: |
2 |
> On 03-08-2011 11:09:07 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
3 |
> > > > 1. Include all commits, don't retroactively change existing ChangeLog |
4 |
> > > > messages |
5 |
> > > > |
6 |
> > > > 2. Allow commit filtering, don't retroactively change existing ChangeLog |
7 |
> > > > messages |
8 |
> > > > |
9 |
> > > > - Filters to allow: keywording, stabilization, removal of ebuilds. |
10 |
> > > > Whoever implements the code can decide on the format of said filters. |
11 |
> > > > |
12 |
> > > > |
13 |
> > > > Do any council members feel strongly that we should include additional |
14 |
> > > > options, or is it good enough to just make a choice on these two? |
15 |
> > > |
16 |
> > > I listed the questions I think are relevant at the bottom of my mail. I |
17 |
> > > feel you forgot the most important one: should ChangeLogs be |
18 |
> > > auto-generated at all?. Only if yes, |
19 |
> > |
20 |
> > Yeah, that's already on my draft agenda [1]. =) But we should still have |
21 |
> > a small set of options to choose from if we do vote to automate, so we |
22 |
> > don't sit around for another month or discuss it aimlessly for hours. |
23 |
> > Being prepared is what I'm hoping we can do here. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> Ok, then I suggest simply adding ", don't bother about changes between |
26 |
> CVS log and ChangeLog" to both of your options. |
27 |
|
28 |
I guess I don't understand something here. If we aren't retroactively |
29 |
changing existing ChangeLogs, and we're autogenerating things in the |
30 |
future, where would these changes come from? |
31 |
|
32 |
-- |
33 |
Thanks, |
34 |
Donnie |
35 |
|
36 |
Donnie Berkholz |
37 |
Council Member / Sr. Developer |
38 |
Gentoo Linux |
39 |
Blog: http://dberkholz.com |